Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fordim
There is no real 'magic' in the books insofar as the spells and potions all have purely rationalist explanations. They are merely extensions of the scientific-technological view of the world that is now the primary mode of understanding. The way to get something done -- to have power -- is to figure out the technique whereby that can be accomplished.
In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.
|
Whoa,
Fordim, have you been reading A.S. Byatt's attitude about HP? She objects to what she calls a lack of truly perilous stuff in HP. I must send your comments to
Lush. She will be so not amused.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man
I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, Bb, but it seems to me that there are sufficient “ambiguous” characters - those who acts are both “right” and “wrong” at various times (such as Boromir, Denethor, Gollum and even Eowyn) - to engender intelligent thought in the minds of those who are sufficiently receptive. Similarly, I remember thinking on reading The Hobbit recently that Tolkien presents quite a sophisticated moral dilemma with Bilbo’s predicament (stuck between two mutually antagonistic forces of “good”) on the eve of the Battle of Five Armies.
Perhaps that might be a basis on which to distinguish, and even criticise, the Harry Potter books - that the characters are too clear cut, either good or evil with no shades of grey. I do not know the books well enough to say for certain that this is the case but, if it is, there might be a basis for arguing that they present less material to stimulate intelligent thought on moral issues in the minds of young readers.
|
I do think you are right that LotR acknowledges a complexity in moral choices. Complexity of moral dilemma is not, however, completely at odds with the sense that some things are too evil to be contemplated and that goodness must often shut itself off from potentially evil influences in Arda. I suppose what I was getting at was the existence of a continuum of this perspective, that rather than allow discussion, debate, intermingling, there is a tendency in LotR to close off good, to restrict the borders. This happens with Melian's Girdle, with the Shire at the beginning of LotR under the unacknowledged protection of the Rangers and with Aragorn's decree at the end. I'm not saying that LotR is as close-minded as those who see banning or censorship as the only viable option, but I think there are some similarities of attitude.